A virtual personal server?
- Login o registrati per inviare commenti
Hi,
I was wondering if there might be technical issues
preventing me from having my personal server not on an external machine
'netbook, BBB etc.),
But inside a virtual OS on my main PC?
It would demand more CPU power and RAM, but that aside, what else?
Plus I doubt it would take much RAM and CPU.
That could be a nice way to integrate libre and owned social media, email, personal cloud etc.
on the same machine.
Plus it would cost less and be more ecological I suppose, since one less machine is used.
You can install servers on your own hardware. Even low-end machines can be more than enough. It depends on the server and on the number of clients simultaneously connecting to your server (e.g., with a Web server, how many visitors at the same time). If the machine is, at the same time, used as a desktop, some of the desktop applications may raise problems: memory leaks, crashes, etc., whereas stability is a must when server software is developed. And, as root_vegetable wrote, you cannot switch the machine off if you want your server to always be available.
The most ecological solution generally is sharing one dedicated server between many users. Each of them can administrate her own virtual machine. By sharing, the load is more constant: the hardware does not spend as much electricity being idle. The hardware in question usually is server-specific too (no video card consuming energy for nothing).
If professionals take care of the remote hardware, you do not have to (pieces to change, availability of the server, etc.). Also, you usually have the possibility to immediately get more resources (CPU, RAM, storage) by paying more. Pre-configured servers usually are an option too (configuring a mail server is not easy...). Now, the obvious drawback of that solution is that you do not control the hardware, only the software (assuming that you are "root" on your dedicated server and that you only use free software).
The most ecological solution generally is sharing one dedicated server between many users. Each of them can administrate her own virtual machine. By sharing, the load is more constant: the hardware does not spend as much electricity being idle. The hardware in question usually is server-specific too (no video card consuming energy for nothing).
You should also take into consideration that most people have a WiFi router at home, which is idle most of time too. Instead of that, it would be better to use a single board computer as a server and a WiFi router in one.
Also, for privacy sake it's much better to have your server at your home instead, so it can't be tampered with as easily.
I didn't think of stability issues (which I kinda have).
I'm definitely not too hot for remote hardware unless I intend to have many visitors.
Last but not least, let's say I want a server to get social media like Diaspora the easy way (just like getting a program from the repo). I don't need it to be on at all times, only when I use it. Or am I missing something?
Because that would be a great thing to just download say Diaspora with its own server "for dummies".
It would get the load off the existing servers, and people would own their data the easy way.
The accounts on your pod would not be available when the computer is off the network (or do Diaspora's automatically pods copy their accounts to other pods for high availability?).
I am a translator!
> The accounts on your pod would not be available when the computer is off the network
Indeed they won't be available.
> (or do Diaspora's automatically pods copy their accounts to other pods for high availability?).
They don't.
Ah, maybe I misunderstand how this works.
I don't plan to be hosting anything. I was thinking of having a pod with my data on it, and connect with others from my pod when I'm on.
supposedly, if others either have their own pod or are on someone else's, it should work.
And I was thinking that it would be cool if anybody could install diaspora with their own pod on their machine, so they connect when they decide to, and they totally own their data.
You can, if you don't turn off your PC often and don't carry it around regularly. But why would you need to use virtual OS instead of your normal OS? That's doesn't seem efficient and it will require more resources.
Just out of ignorance : I didn't know I could set up my main OS also as a server at the same time.
Not sure how I'd do that though, it seems harder to do (but virtualization is hard in its own way as well, specially since Virtualbox isn't an option anymore).
You do not need a virtual machine. You can install the server on your system. For instance, you can install the "openssh-server" package and you have an SSH server running on your system.
Indeed. hack and hack, there's nothing special about a "server." It's just a computer running some programs, nothing more.
You are right of course, but the word "server" does imply a special set of conditions; being on all the time, having a fixed IP (or a work around that achieves the same thing), and so on. As others have pointed out here, using the same PC for server functions and desktop use risks the server being underpowered, or being offline a lot due to reboots etc. Particularly if the PC is being used for graphic intensive functions like gaming or multimedia creation.
I know this, yet I have a hard time imagining I can install one computer inside or alongside another, both running at the same time, and without virtualization.
What you describe (several operating systems running "inside or alongside another") is virtualization. But one can simply run servers (a server is a program accepting incoming connections from the network, nothing more) on one single operating system, which can run desktop applications at the same time. For instance, if you install the "apache2" package then you have a Web server running on your computer.
I see, thanks for the explanation Magic Banana.
I'm presuming the theory is that running the server functions in a separate virtual machine from the desktop functions will mitigate the stability concerns mentioned by Magic Banana. The approach I was thinking about was doing it the other way around, ie running the desktop system inside a virtual machine (or perhaps a Docker container), hosted on the server. However, since it now seems like my netbook could function as a server, I'm thinking about setting up a Freedombone system on that.
One question that's really worth doing some rigorous thinking about is; what do you want a server for? If it's for the purpose of publishing things to the world in general, privacy isn't really any issue, so you might as well lease a server from an ISP, or just use a hosted service which will cope better if you get Slashdotted (or Reddited or whatever). If there are things you'd prefer to keep private (eg private communications, file storage and sync, scheduling calendar) but you want to be able to access them from multiple devices, or share them with a private group (eg a social network for sharing news, photos etc with your family), that's where a home server could be worth a try.
I have a very specific, but possibly completely wrong idea of the way I want to use this server.
(I think) I get the basic idea of a server, but this is a special case. Most services would be useless if the server isn't on at all times.
I'm thinking of a way to keep my data on my machine, and still be able to connect to, say, Diaspora whenever I want to. That means I'd be the only person on the server for this specific case, so in theory I would have no need for it to be always on.
And if this is possible, it would be great if installing diaspora also installed a small "one user server" for that purpose only.
People on other pods will not be able to access your Diapora* page when your computer is off.
That would probably be dissuasive, since "lurking" is one of those popular guilty pleasures.
On the other hand, since my page would be automatically active when my machine is on (meaning others pages would be on only when someone with the same system is connected), how would I feel about it?
Well first it only reveals that the computer is on, not that I'm available.
Also, no more of those awkward dead people pages.
The problem is that there can't be no delayed communication: when my page is off, no one can write something to me for a later time. It strictly becomes a live medium.
Oh well, not such a great idea, after all.
A private server needs very little resources and it doesn't need to be that stable. It's not as special as you think. Just try it and see.
Oh, that's cool. Specially for what I have in mind (if it's even possible), it shouldn't need much resources.
- Login o registrati per inviare commenti